Skip to main content

About your Search

20121128
20121128
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)
hours, where apparently the acting director of the cia told the senators that it was the fbi that changed the talking points, that removed the reference to al-qaeda, and he had a reason for it in the meeting. he said it was because they didn't want to hurt an ongoing criminal investigation, and now later today the cia came out and said, well, he misspoke. so it's now the fourth or fifth iteration of who changed the talking points, which isn't something that happens when you're actually telling the truth. >> sean: this is the problem susan rice has and the white house has, is if david petraeus knew instantly, and charlie lamb says that the state department was watching this in real time, and they were getting reports on the ground, calls for help to the cia annex, and the libyan president, all of these things happened within 24 hours, there's no justification at all to go blame a youtube video. if their explanation is, well, we didn't want to jump the gun, then they couldn't jump the gun on that excuse either. so that doesn't fly. >> right. >> i'm not surprised by what they sa
on the fbi investigation going on, and i suspect questions -- fbi investigation going on, and i suspect questions about security, and why chris stevens was in the gaza without better protection -- again, those are separate -- benghazi without better protection -- but again, those are separate questions. host: north carolina. republican. you are next. caller: i think this susan rice thing is a smokescreen. you have somebody that is an ambassador and rehearses talking points, and she does not question or analyze the information, whether it is true or not. the cia says they knew this was a terrorist attack within 24 hours, and days later she is voicing the same thing, as well as president obama. consequently, it looks like the whole problem goes about her. i am a retired captain in the navy. if you do not have leadership and take responsibility, everything goes into disarray. when did the president now what was the -- know what was going on, and who gave the order for that story to be announced as far as it been an attack based on a video. there is a smokescreen going on. host: david, in a
-qaeda references were dropped in the c.i.a. talking points at the request of the f.b.i. because the bureau did not want to compromise an ongoing criminal investigation. but late this afternoon, c.i.a. officials called to correct the record, that it was actually them. rice met with senator joe lieberman who asked if she was coached by the add f before her talk hoe appearances. >> she said no, she was not given messaging points at all by the white house prior to her appearance on those sound morning shows. >> so the meeting today did not settle the matter. it certainly is not as far as these republicans are concerned. >> shepard: what's the response from the administration? >> in that written statement, rice who was joined by the acting c.i.a. director on the hill, said, quote, we explained the talking points provided by the intelligence community and the initial assessment upon which they were based were incorrect in the key respect there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. also at the white house briefing, jay carney seemed to try and put the focus on the investigation and not ambassa
said that the talking points have been changed by the fbi because of an on-going criminal investigation. and they were very troubled by this because of course we had already been told it was the dni that changed them. then they got a call at 4:00 p.m. from the c.i.a., actually, no it wasn't. it was us. we changed them. so then they're going what the bleep is going on? they can't get their act straight. and yet the focus of their rage when they came out from the meeting was susan rice, not michael morrell. >> bill: right. so susan rice, first of all not responsible for security at consulates or embassies around the country. number two, she's not the one who wrote those intelligence reports or provided the material for the intelligence report that she -- the findings of which she simply read or reported on. if the anger should be directed toward anybody it should be against the c.i.a. or the fbi or whoever did not have all of the facts right. but jon huntsman, the one republican making any sense on this issue
. because yesterday the cia acting director at 10:00 a.m. apparently blamed the fbi for changing the language and the guidance and the talking points. at 4:00 in the afternoon the cia acting director came back and said it was at cia after all. what explains that? >> this stuff is coming from the white house. they are hoping this will go away. i don't happen to be one of the senators she cares to talk about and maybe it's because while opposed to her from her position as ambassador of the united nations and nothing could change my mind on that. bill: based on that answer it appears you are willing to take that answer higher than susan rice with it comes to benghazi. >> this will go down as the biggest coverup in history. they all knew it. they are hoping to have it go beyond the election date which it did. but people are not going to forget it. the administration deliberately covered this and misrepresented what happened in benghazi threatened up in the both of four people. one of whom was a good friend of mine, ambassador stevens. bill: the biggest coverup in american history. >>
of the rewriting of those talking points was done by the fbi to take out al qaeda references, not by the zewe we had been told by the director of national intelligence came from the intelligence committee. it's worse than when she went up. she'll see bob corker, known to be bipartisan from tennessee and i don't think it'll be quite as vitriolic as yesterday. she felt she wanted to clear her name and she had been maligned and just been on morning television. that the real issue as jay carney was trying to say what happened before, what happened during but not what happened on sunday morning television programs and there is an investigation that hillary clinton has commissioned. it is a legally mandated investigation being led by none other than the former chairman, joint chief, mike ullin and co-chaired from mike pickering and deputy secretary of state. it's going to be coming out in mid-december and reported to congress and i understand it's going to be very tough on the state department for not ramping up security which many people believe could be the real issue here, not what was said on sund
to the u.n. and she reviewed much more than that. >> we need to do a lot more to e. we do not have the fbi interviews conducted -- conducted after the attacks. we do not have the basic information about what it is said the night of the attack that was shared with congress us of this date. i remember the john bolton episode well. our democratic friends felt he did not have the information needed to make informed decisions for john bolton to be an ambassador . the democrats would not consider the nomination until they got basic answers. all i can say is we are not close to getting the basic answer is. >> i have many more questions that can be answered. -- that cannot be answered. >> after her meeting with senators, you and ambassadors season rice released a statement that said -- while we wish we had had perfect information days after the terrorist attack, the intelligence assessment has inevolved. no one intended to mislead the american people. the administration of the congress and the american people as our assessments the vault. evolved. the senate majority whip said his talks continued
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8 (some duplicates have been removed)